"Nav" wrote in message
...


Peter S/Y Anicula wrote:

"Nav" wrote


Sigh. Look you can say what you like but it is the imbalance of
force between the centrifigal and gravitational forces that causes
the two tides.


That's the explanation that you advocate. That is one out of several
explanation models.


Among simple explanations it's the one that is most accurate. How's that?



If the moon stopped its rotation around the earth and was "falling"
toward the earth, there would still be two bulges.
Anyone who claims otherwise clearly haven't understood what is
happening.


Yes that's right but the bulges would be small. I think the problem
probably stems back to Newton who suggested that gravity could explain
the tides. There is no doubt that gravity can produce tidal forces but
we are talking about the real tides on Earth. These are produced by the
imbalance of gravity and centrifugal (inertial) forces. This model
predicts larger tides than are seen but that leads to greater insight
too. The tides are smaller than expected because of friction and land
masses. While your differential gravity explanation can produce a tide
"similar" to that observed it does not explain it -unless you assume the
land masses don't exist. Do you see my point of view now?


Are you really claiming that the "open ocean" tides are over 100 feet, but the
land masses reduce them to under 10 feet? The tides have been studied in
considerable detail for the last few hundred years, and the scientists have been
quite happy with the "differential" model. Do you really think that a different
model that gives a radically different answer could actually be correct?